does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?

This is a discussion on does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; OK all you purists out there, do you think that Title 18 US Code, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional because it states that no one under ...

View Poll Results: Are the limits to the 2nd Amendment Constitutional?

does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?

OK all you purists out there, do you think that Title 18 US Code, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional because it states that no one under 18 can own a firearm (long gun) and no one under 21 can own a handgun?

Do you think that the law that says you can not have a fully automatic weapon with out paying the extra tax and going thru the other hoops you have to is unconstitutional?

Should a 17 year old American be able to own a stinger? Should a 25 year old be able to own a Stinger?

Do you think you should lose your second amendment rights if you are convicted of a felony?

From my understanding of the constitution the federal government has ABSOLUTLY no right to make ANY gun laws. The Constitution was written to limit the federal government and what was not specifically given to the federal government is left to the states.

That been said from the wording of the 2nd Amendment it leaves room for the states to make gun laws.

Being a Federalist, if Illinois doesn't want anyone but criminals to have guns by the way the populace votes, it is their right. The same as Alaska has the right not to require concealed permits for people to carry, it is their right.

Being a Federalist I don't like universal laws for the whole country because there is a world of difference between New York and North Dakota where the threat in New York is from a thug and the bigger threat is from an animal (not that we don't have crime)

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
Zacharia Johnson (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,25 June 1778)"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ~Alexander Hamilton

It's also been well established that all rights have certain restrictions. Free speech does not allow you to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The right to peaceably assemble can be regulated as to time and place.

I believe the right to keep and bear arms should not be as restricted as it is, but even in the most liberitarian society there would have to be some restrictions. Felons, the mentally incompetent and minors seem good categories to regulate.

As for a SAM, if you're an adult why not? Again I do believe there needs to be SOME govt oversight, so register it as an AOW and have at it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Mainly the well regulated Militia portion because the militia is to protect the sovereignty of a state, not the National government seams to leave to the state the right to make there own laws concerning firearms ownership. The state government being the extention of the body politic and keep to the will of the people if the majority decides that they don't want you to carry in church that is the way a Republic works. We don't always get what we want because we are in the minority. (Well, with the exception of the oligarchy that the courts are trying to set themselves up as, but that's another story all it's and in this context has no relevence to the arguement)

While there is a valid arguement with the "right shall not be infringed" portion of the Amendment, that particular arguement doesn't take into account the states rights attitude of the Constitution as a whole.

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
Zacharia Johnson (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,25 June 1778)"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ~Alexander Hamilton

Yes. Prior to the "equal protection" decision a state or local govt could do any or all of those things... and often did.

When written the Constitution ONLY applied to the Federal govt. It wasn't until some time after the 14th Ammendment was passed that the restrictions of the Constitution were applied to state law and state and local govts. Before that only state constitutions restricted the power of local law enforcement, protected free speech and religion and so forth.

Some states did, in fact, have state religions.

The SCOTUS case interpreting "equal protection" clause to require states to comply with the Federal Constitution isn't black-letter law, it's case law and could be over turned... it also isn't a "strict interpretation", the SCOTUS made an inference.

If you believe in a strict "Founding Fathers" interpretation of the Constitution, then you have to believe that the Bill of Rights only limits the Federal Govt and that the states can regulate all those "rights" any way they want. You can't have it both ways. There is nothing which explicitly states that the Constitution applied to anyone besides the Federal govt.

That's what many strict interpreters don't understand. By the strict wording of the Constitution any state legislature can throw the Bill of Rights out the window. Their only limitation then is their own state constitutions.

Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy

How do you figure the wording in the second amendment leaves room for the states to make gun laws? Does that mean they can make laws banning my right to go to church? Can the state tell me I can not run a paper or a magazine?
.

"State" in this context refers to the Nation, not individual states. "Well Regulated" in 1780's military terminology meant "well trained and equipped". Private citizens made up the militia, therefore private citizens had to have access to military-grade weapons and equipment. Often they were REQUIRED to own such weapons, to drill with them regularly, and to keep a certain amount of powder and ball on hand at all times. Today under Federal law the militia consists of all able bodied men between 15 and (IIRC) 45. By a strict interpretation of teh Constitution they should all own military-grade firearms in uniform calibers, should be required to train with them regularly, and should keep useful quantities of ammunition on hand for emergencies... ie: the modern Swiss Militia System.

Note that this wouldn't prevent the a state legislature from banning ownership of firearms for private use.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let take abortion. Texas said you can not have an abortion. SCOTUS said yes you can. Federal trumped State Law. SCOTUS somehow found the right for abortion in the constitution. (I don't see it but they did).

Scokie and then Illinois told the Nazis they could not march. SCOTUS said yes they can the 1st amendment gives them the right of free speech.

At the present time SCOTUS has said that states can infringe on the right to bear arms (which again I do not understand but they can) I think it will be overturned at some point but I also think abortion will be overturned at some point.

TODAY Federal law trumps state law. Prior to the 14th Ammendment it did not.

From Wikipedia:

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgement by state governments — henceforth they could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.

For a long while after the Clause became a part of the Constitution, it was interpreted narrowly. During and after World War II, however, the United States Supreme Court began to construe the Clause more expansively. During the 1960s, the other two branches of the federal government — the executive and the legislative — joined in, as Congress and the President passed and enforced legislation intended to ensure equality in education, employment, housing, lodging, and government benefits. While an expansive reading of the Clause was undercut, to some extent, by Court decisions of the 1970s and 1980s, the Equal Protection Clause remains an integral part of U.S. constitutional law.

I'm saying that if you're a "Constitutional Purist" and believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution then you have to believe that state's rights should trump the Federal law and the states should be able to do whatever they want, since that's how the country was set up in the first place.

Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy

Tank

I am not sure what you are saying.

I say no state law can take away my rights under federal law.

Let take abortion. Texas said you can not have an abortion. SCOTUS said yes you can. Federal trumped State Law. SCOTUS somehow found the right for abortion in the constitution. (I don't see it but they did).

Scokie and then Illinois told the Nazis they could not march. SCOTUS said yes they can the 1st amendment gives them the right of free speech.

At the present time SCOTUS has said that states can infringe on the right to bear arms (which again I do not understand but they can) I think it will be overturned at some point but I also think abortion will be overturned at some point.

There again being a Federalist, I believe that SCOTUS has overstepped it's bounds time and again when it decides that it can stray into making law. Making law is expressly the legislative branch's responsibility, but since the 1930's the Courts have done their level best to usurp that power.

Just because the national government is claiming that power doesn't mean it's there. The Constitution is pretty clear on what the National government can do. That is why citizenship is so important, when our legislators overstep, they need to be voted out. There are ways that congress can curb the power of the courts they just don't have the guts.

Remember, I'm coming from a strict view of the constitution (Eventhough, Tank Soldier and I disagree on the what is ment by State). The powers that aren't expressly given to the national government go to the states.

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
Zacharia Johnson (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,25 June 1778)"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ~Alexander Hamilton

Today under Federal law the militia consists of all able bodied men between 15 and (IIRC) 45. By a strict interpretation of teh Constitution they should all own military-grade firearms in uniform calibers, should be required to train with them regularly, and should keep useful quantities of ammunition on hand for emergencies... ie: the modern Swiss Militia System.

I've never heard that before, do you happen to know where that is actually written into law?

I don't think there should be any restrictions upon weapons and voted as such. You are innocent until proven guilty in America and that's how it should be. If you can afford and want a cruise missile in your back yard, I'm all for it. The second you launch it at your neighbors house for an unjustified reason is when I have a problem.

With that said, I don't think that felons should be allowed to own firearms. Although, I would like to redefine what a felon is because I think that some crimes don't fit the mold. If you're a person that's proven that you are a negative asset to society, I don't think you should have any rights whatsoever.

Just about everything is a shade of grey in real life. I think many <21 year olds are too irresponsible to do much of anything, but not all of them. Some kids grow up with guns, some kids are stupid and thoughtless. There's a difference in whether these types of kids should or shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

There is nothing wrong with restrictions on gun ownership. Licensing, background checks, age restrictions, etc. I have no problem with that.

As a retired lawyer, I caution all and sundry NOT to view any law as an absolute. Laws are constantly being "interpreted" by various courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS. What this means in the real world is that people with various biases and political agendas, namely judges, are constantly opining as to what a given law means in a given factual situation. Take it from me: some of those opinions seemingly are written in a legal vacuum.

What it boils down to is that one's rights are placed in the hands of a stranger to the case, thus total trust in the law is risky business.

That being said, IMHO, felons who have used guns in the commission of a crime should not have 2d amendment rights. They are among the lead reasons for the opposition to legitimate ownership and use of firearms.